The operational context of care sport connectors in the Netherlands

To stimulate physical activity (PA) and guide primary care patients towards local sport facilities, Care Sport Connectors (CSCs), to whom a broker role has been ascribed, were introduced in 2012 in the Netherlands. The aim of this study is to describe CSCs' operational context. A theoretical framework was developed and used as the starting point for this study. Group interviews were held with policymakers in nine participating municipalities, and, when applicable, the CSC's manager was also present. Prior to the interviews, a first outline of the operational context was mapped, based on the analysis of policy documents and a questionnaire completed by the policymakers. A deductive content analysis, based on the theoretical framework, was used to analyse the interviews. Differences were found in CSCs' operational context in the different municipalities, especially the extent to which municipalities adopted an integral approach. An integral approach consists of an integral policy in combination with an imbedding of this policy in partnerships at management level. This integral approach is reflected in the activities of other municipal operations, for example the implementation of health and PA programs by different organisations. Given the CSC mandate, we think that this integral approach may be supportive of the CSCs' work, because it is reflected in other operations of the municipalities and thus creates conditions for the CSCs' work. Further study is required to ascertain whether this integral approach is actually supporting CSCs in their work to connect the primary care and the PA sector.

The role of the care sport connector in the Netherlands

Introduction

To stimulate physical activity and guide primary care patients towards local sport facilities, Care Sport Connectors (CSC), to whom a broker role has been ascribed, were introduced in 2012 in the Netherlands. The aim of this study was to explore CSCs' role in connecting the primary care sector and the PA sector.

Method

Fifteen CSCs were selected to participate in this study and were followed in their work of connecting both sectors. Over the course of one year, three rounds of interviews were held with these CSCs on the topics of their role and the connection between the primary care and the PA sector. Both top-down and bottom-up codes were used to analyse the interviews.

Results

CSCs fulfilled three roles: 1) broker, 2) referral, 3) organiser. The extent to which CSCs fulfilled these roles was influenced by the way municipalities implemented the CSC funding. CSCs set up two forms of collaboration structures: 1) project basis and 2) referral scheme. CSCs perceived the following barriers to connecting the primary care and the PA sector: lack of knowledge and time, primary care professionals' own interests, and lack of suitable sport activities for the target group.

Conclusion

The CSC role seems to hold the promise of improving collaboration between the primary care and the PA sector, especially, because the roles that CSCs perceive themselves as having seem to be directed at eliminating barriers in this connection. Future research is needed to study whether CSCs are capable of establishing a connection over time.

SELECT-2: a phase II, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy of selumetinib plus docetaxel as a second-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

Background

Combination of selumetinib plus docetaxel provided clinical benefit in a previous phase II trial for patients with KRAS-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The phase II SELECT-2 trial investigated safety and efficacy of selumetinib plus docetaxel for patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Patients and methods

Patients who had disease progression after first-line anti-cancer therapy were randomized (2 : 2 : 1) to selumetinib 75 mg b.i.d. plus docetaxel 60 or 75 mg/m² (SEL + DOC 60; SEL + DOC 75), or placebo plus docetaxel 75 mg/m² (PBO + DOC 75). Patients were initially enrolled independently of KRAS mutation status, but the protocol was amended to include only patients with centrally confirmed KRAS wild-type NSCLC. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; RECIST 1.1); statistical analyses compared each selumetinib group with PBO + DOC 75 for KRAS wild-type and overall (KRAS mutant or wild-type) populations.

Results

A total of 212 patients were randomized; 69% were KRAS wild-type. There were no statistically significant improvements in PFS or overall survival for overall or KRAS wild-type populations in either selumetinib group compared with PBO + DOC 75. Overall population median PFS for SEL + DOC 60, SEL + DOC 75 compared with PBO + DOC 75 was 3.0, 4.2, and 4.3 months, HRs: 1.12 (90% CI: 0.8, 1.61) and 0.92 (90% CI: 0.65, 1.31), respectively. In the overall population, a higher objective response rate (ORR; investigator assessed) was observed for SEL + DOC 75 (33%) compared with PBO + DOC 75 (14%); odds ratio: 3.26 (90% CI: 1.47, 7.95). Overall the tolerability profile of SEL + DOC was consistent with historical data, without new or unexpected safety concerns identified.

Conclusion

The primary end point (PFS) was not met. The higher ORR with SEL + DOC 75 did not translate into prolonged PFS for the overall or KRAS wild-type patient populations. No clinical benefit was observed with SEL + DOC in KRAS wild-type patients compared with docetaxel alone. No unexpected safety concerns were reported.

Trial identifier

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01750281.